![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An abomination worse than Vampires and Lichens put together!!
Like many of you, I feel compelled to weigh in on the ugly business at hand. Once again, Congress getting together to decide who a bunch of people they've never met before should or should not be allowed to marry.
I learned in grade school that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that democrats want more and bigger government, while Republicans want less. Much like that whole George Washington/Cherry Tree kerfluffle, it appears that my teachers filled my head with lies, and then quizzed me on them.
I can't imagine that anyone on my friends list would actually be so archaic as to suggest that two single adults who love eachother should not be allowed to marry. Then again, my last poll brought to my attention that a few of you think censorship is A-OK and that horrors in other countries are not a big deal. :-(
So let me just tell you all a few things:
1. There is no shortage of children in this country and no reason at all to insist that people procreate. Plenty of kids are in inadequate schools, unable to see doctors, and are even starving. And we all know that the real reason people want to ban gay marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. If it did, those who chose not or could not have children would also not be allowed to marry. And of course, if we were really going to make legislation to better marriages, we would insist on waiting periods, mandatory counseling and education before marriage. We'd also criminalize adultery and verbal abuse, hell...we might even go so far as to prosecute spousal rape, which we almost never do.
2. I've heard people say that since lots of people want a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it should be discussed. Obviously people feel both ways about it. But let's look at the US's last big marriage controversy: For those of you who don't know, Alabama was the last US state to lift their legal ban on interracial marriage. Not in the 60's, not in the 70's, but in 2000. That's right, 2000. So the vote was just a formality right? By 2000 surely everyone knew better than to really think "race mixing" is just a silly thing to worry about. However, when polled 26% of Alabama citizens opposed lifting the ban, while 10% were "not sure." So, just because a lot of people agree with some crack-pot, podunk, fundie way of thinking, doesn't mean the law should follow them. Two years earlier, 62% of South Carolinans supported lifting their interracial marriage ban, which means 38% of voters thought the ban was just fine.
3. Not everyone beleives that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have any parallels. One Georgia pastor said "“To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable,” he said. “Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.” and another said “The interracial marriage ban was clearly built on a history of preserving the idea of racial purity and racial superiority of one race over another,” she told BP. “The requirement that a man and a woman be the applicants for a marriage license is not built on a history that men are superior to women or that women are superior to men.”
So to sum up, being gay is a sin, and the law of the land should reflect that. So much for this being a secular debate, no? And the crack about our laws not implying that women (who, in case you hadn't heard, should conduct themselves as if they are pre-pregnant at all times) are lesser than men in the eyes of the law? Priceless. I have never heard of a law that prohibits medical procedures for men. The point is, both bans are based on a contempt, if not outright hatred for those being "banned." Even though you cannot really use legislation to make people not hate; it shouldn't cowtow to haters.
4. Matrimony is a religious sacrement, a covenant with god. Marriage is a legal ceremony documenting the formation of a union between two people. If your religion says that gay people should not be married, then your church should not host gay weddings. But to ask the population at large to adhere to your backward-ass, antiquated beleifs is just silly (yes, that is a judgemental statement, I realize this). I don't ask fundies to dance naked around a bonfire and have cerimonial sex with me, because I don't assume everyone does what I do (not that I do that, I'm just saying).
5. The Children. Everyone is always crying about how homosexuals are ruining the children even though there is no evidence to support this. There have been homosexuals around for as long as humans have been fucking, and we're still populating the world and raising a few good kids here and there. Gay parents do not neccesarily raise gay children (but so what if they did?), any more than straight parents always raise straight kids. And you know, I cannot think of a single serial killer who was raised by gay parents. By that logic, straight parents are the ones you need to keep an eye on.
6. I've heard many people say that "if gays get married, what next? People will want to marry dogs and farm animals, what about three people who want to marry? What about incest?" To you I say, that if you can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and one involving dogs or siblings, you have no business being part of this discussion. Personally, so long as everyone involved is a legally sane, consenting adult, it's not really anyone else's damn business.
7. But but...our rights? Yes, there are some tax and insurance benefits to people who marry. But I've seen no evidence to suggest that affording thse benefits to gays will somehow cause the US economy to collapse. The main benefit of marriage is that you can choose your legal next of kin. This way, if anything happens to you your choices can be made by your life partner, and not the fuckwit parents who threw you out of the house when you came out.
A year or so ago, I challenged any or all of you to present a secular argument for supporting a ban on gay marriage. No one did. So if I'm right, and everyone agrees with me, what are we still talking about this for?
And of course, I am an ordained minister and will be happy to marry anyone who asks me and is not a total asshat.
I learned in grade school that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that democrats want more and bigger government, while Republicans want less. Much like that whole George Washington/Cherry Tree kerfluffle, it appears that my teachers filled my head with lies, and then quizzed me on them.
I can't imagine that anyone on my friends list would actually be so archaic as to suggest that two single adults who love eachother should not be allowed to marry. Then again, my last poll brought to my attention that a few of you think censorship is A-OK and that horrors in other countries are not a big deal. :-(
So let me just tell you all a few things:
1. There is no shortage of children in this country and no reason at all to insist that people procreate. Plenty of kids are in inadequate schools, unable to see doctors, and are even starving. And we all know that the real reason people want to ban gay marriage has nothing to do with procreation anyway. If it did, those who chose not or could not have children would also not be allowed to marry. And of course, if we were really going to make legislation to better marriages, we would insist on waiting periods, mandatory counseling and education before marriage. We'd also criminalize adultery and verbal abuse, hell...we might even go so far as to prosecute spousal rape, which we almost never do.
2. I've heard people say that since lots of people want a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it should be discussed. Obviously people feel both ways about it. But let's look at the US's last big marriage controversy: For those of you who don't know, Alabama was the last US state to lift their legal ban on interracial marriage. Not in the 60's, not in the 70's, but in 2000. That's right, 2000. So the vote was just a formality right? By 2000 surely everyone knew better than to really think "race mixing" is just a silly thing to worry about. However, when polled 26% of Alabama citizens opposed lifting the ban, while 10% were "not sure." So, just because a lot of people agree with some crack-pot, podunk, fundie way of thinking, doesn't mean the law should follow them. Two years earlier, 62% of South Carolinans supported lifting their interracial marriage ban, which means 38% of voters thought the ban was just fine.
3. Not everyone beleives that interracial marriage and homosexual marriage have any parallels. One Georgia pastor said "“To connect this to civil rights, to the rights of an individual, is absolutely intolerable,” he said. “Being black is not a sin. I rest my case there.” and another said “The interracial marriage ban was clearly built on a history of preserving the idea of racial purity and racial superiority of one race over another,” she told BP. “The requirement that a man and a woman be the applicants for a marriage license is not built on a history that men are superior to women or that women are superior to men.”
So to sum up, being gay is a sin, and the law of the land should reflect that. So much for this being a secular debate, no? And the crack about our laws not implying that women (who, in case you hadn't heard, should conduct themselves as if they are pre-pregnant at all times) are lesser than men in the eyes of the law? Priceless. I have never heard of a law that prohibits medical procedures for men. The point is, both bans are based on a contempt, if not outright hatred for those being "banned." Even though you cannot really use legislation to make people not hate; it shouldn't cowtow to haters.
4. Matrimony is a religious sacrement, a covenant with god. Marriage is a legal ceremony documenting the formation of a union between two people. If your religion says that gay people should not be married, then your church should not host gay weddings. But to ask the population at large to adhere to your backward-ass, antiquated beleifs is just silly (yes, that is a judgemental statement, I realize this). I don't ask fundies to dance naked around a bonfire and have cerimonial sex with me, because I don't assume everyone does what I do (not that I do that, I'm just saying).
5. The Children. Everyone is always crying about how homosexuals are ruining the children even though there is no evidence to support this. There have been homosexuals around for as long as humans have been fucking, and we're still populating the world and raising a few good kids here and there. Gay parents do not neccesarily raise gay children (but so what if they did?), any more than straight parents always raise straight kids. And you know, I cannot think of a single serial killer who was raised by gay parents. By that logic, straight parents are the ones you need to keep an eye on.
6. I've heard many people say that "if gays get married, what next? People will want to marry dogs and farm animals, what about three people who want to marry? What about incest?" To you I say, that if you can't tell the difference between a homosexual marriage and one involving dogs or siblings, you have no business being part of this discussion. Personally, so long as everyone involved is a legally sane, consenting adult, it's not really anyone else's damn business.
7. But but...our rights? Yes, there are some tax and insurance benefits to people who marry. But I've seen no evidence to suggest that affording thse benefits to gays will somehow cause the US economy to collapse. The main benefit of marriage is that you can choose your legal next of kin. This way, if anything happens to you your choices can be made by your life partner, and not the fuckwit parents who threw you out of the house when you came out.
A year or so ago, I challenged any or all of you to present a secular argument for supporting a ban on gay marriage. No one did. So if I'm right, and everyone agrees with me, what are we still talking about this for?
And of course, I am an ordained minister and will be happy to marry anyone who asks me and is not a total asshat.